Joining Kirstin this week (actually in Podcast Towers for a change!) is Joseph Lynch. He is a family law specialist whose work mainly involves public law cases - where a local authority is seeking to remove the child from the custody of the parents.

We will be back in <cough> six weeks with a new series. Series 10 is quite likely to end with a party. What do you say? Fancy joining us for a few sneaky drinks at a live show? Let us know on the Twitter, Google+, email or on 0161 408 5037

Jonathan Rayner, writing in the Law Society Gazette, quotes Law Society criminal law committee chair Richard Atkinson told me: ‘It is a dangerous move to take away the requirement for a conviction to make a restrictive order, not least because the order will be interpreted as proof that you committed the offence and that you are indeed a paedophile.

‘Also, if you resort to litigation to resist the restrictions, you are effectively telling the prosecution in advance how you intend to conduct your defence – giving the prosecution two bites of the cherry.’

Also, keep a lookout for a new law-based podcast, coming soon on the Northpod network of podcasts. Don't worry as we will add the new show to your podcast feed automatically when it's available so you don't miss out.

It considers whether you commit a breach if you fail to do something after the time you ought to have done it, why you need to tell someone to do something by four days after you want it doing and revisits who can bring contempt proceedings. It's a very good place to start if you ever need to research contempt!

Our discussion is all about imaginative approaches to theft offences. First we look at Professor Andrew Ashworth's Howard League paper which suggests that Theft should not incur a prison sentence, then Lyndon gives broad support to the idea of giving shop-lifters food vouchers. Jonathan Holt considers proposals for making Magistrates impose more custodial sentences and worries about the demise of more and more
Magistrates' courts in which to issue those sentences.

Finally we turn away from Criminal Law and look at two Immigration Law cases implimenting the ruling in Zambrano.

Ben talks to Kate Hammond, former CPS Crown Advocate and to Keith Jones, both Barristers in Private Practice at Central Chambers in Manchester. They discuss the recent and much publicised use of the term "sexual predator" by Prosecuting Counsel, in relation to a 13-year-old victim.

Kirstin joins Ben then to go through some interesting cases with differing bizarreness rating. We answer the questions:
1. Whether it matters if you thought you were indulging in sex with a girl or a boy- R v McNally
2. Whether you can do an act which intimidates without intimidating - R v ZN
3. What is the exact time the Defence are aware of a witness for the purpose of witness notification?
- Re Joseph Hill and Co
4. Whether the Jury need to know for what a SOPO was imposed. - Sheikh[2013] EWCA Crim 907
and
5. When is the prosecution allowed to rely on their witness being a good egg? - R v Lodge

If you'd like to view the vulnerable witness handling video please click here.

And if you're following the 13-year-old case controversy and have run out of reading matter you might find some new stuff in this lot:News articles: